Modern functional programming languages are no more similar to lambda calculus as modern imperative languages are similar to Turing machines. In lambda calculu

Modern functional programming languages are no more similar to lambda calculus as modern imperative languages are similar to Turing machines. In lambda calculus, functions are declared and manipulated. Data can be encoded as a function and vice versa. Sound like any functional languages you know (cough Lisp cough)? In Turing machines, cells on the tape (or variables) are marked (or declared) and manipulated. But try shoehorning OOP into this model. It's a model. It's may not capture all the details. It's like how modeling the crash safety of a car is similar to idealized theoretical physics. Sure, safety systems differ widely across cars, but ultimately, we have models that put limits on how likely a person is to survive a crash. The model isn't perfect, but it captures the essence of the differences of the two languages.